The invention is directed to a shock absorbing wheel suspension apparatus and related method. Although the preferred embodiment is described with respect to the rear suspension on a mountain bike, persons of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the invention may be readily utilized in other configurations and devices, especially those using chain drive power on a suspended wheel, including (by way of example and not by way of limitation) suspensions for motorcycles, tricycles, four-wheeled vehicles, and other vehicles.
The following table sets forth U.S. patents which may be material to the patentability of the invention:
U.S. Pat. No.InventorIssued4,789,174LawwillDecember 19885,121,937LawwillJune 19925,217,241GirvinJune 19935,244,224BusbySeptember 19935,306,036BusbyApril 19945,409,249BusbyApril 19955,441,292BusbyAugust 19955,474,318CastellanoDecember 19955,509,679LeitnerApril 19965,628,524Klassen et al.May 19975,671,936TurnerSeptember 19975,678,837LeitnerOctober 1997
Also, a number of Internet websites currently display bicycles having wheel suspensions. Examples can be seen at the websites for the following companies: Cyber Cyclery, Intense Cycles, Inc., GT Bicycles, Mountain Cycle, Schwinn, and Ventana Mountain Bikes.
Although current bicycle suspension designs typically include shock absorption capabilities that are intended, among other things, to provide comfort and safety and, ideally, to allow the tires to maintain contact with the ground (even on uneven surfaces) and have traction on rough, steep climbs and descents, current designs have a number of inherit faults or shortcomings.
Among other things, suspensions typically permit riders to descend with greater speed, control and comfort. Moreover, although the suspension provides some benefits for climbing (and, as indicated, definitely provides important benefits to descending), many (if not most) current designs are actually generally considered a hindrance to climbing. During climbing, most prior art suspensions “suck” power (as described below); the less kinetically efficient designs typically “suck” the most power during climbing. In addition, many prior art suspension designs are so bulky or contorted that they add undesirable weight to the bicycle, which also “sucks” power from the rider, especially during climbing.
While some of the benefits provided by the invention might be achievable by using idler pulleys and other components, such approaches presumably would add weight (for the extra components) and the additional drag of pulleys would of course require additional energy to propel (from the rider, the engine, etc.)
In addition, it would presumably be difficult (or even impossible) to utilize such a pulley system on a bicycle with otherwise conventional industry standard components (gears, derailleurs, etc.). In other words, such pulley approaches might not be able to use an “off-the-shelf” set of gears.
Several examples of these shortcomings are further discussed below.